Send me email updates about messages I've received on the site and the latest news from The CafeMom Team.
By signing up, you certify that you are female and accept the Terms of Service and have read the
Privacy Policy.

34 Unconvincing Arguments for God

Introduction â Atheism â the lack of
belief in gods â is based upon a lack of evidence for gods, lack of a
reason to believe in gods, and difficulties and contradictions that some
god ideas lead to.

Nevertheless, atheism is a tentative state, subject to change if compelling theistic arguments are presented.

Following
are some of the arguments that atheists have considered, along with
some of the reasons these arguments have been rejected.

(1) God-of-the-Gaps (God as a âfree lunchâ)
â Almost every âproofâ for the existence of gods relies, at least in
part, on a god-of-the gaps argument. This argument says that if we donât
know the answer to something, then âGod did it.â âGodâ gets to win by
default, without any positive evidence. But is saying âGod did itâ
really an answer?

Intelligent design, god-advocate William Dembski has authored a book entitled No Free Lunch. However, âGodâ is the ultimate âfree lunch.â Consider the following:

We donât know what gods are composed of.

We donât know what godsâ attributes are.

We donât know how many gods there are.

We donât know where gods are.

We donât know where gods come from or, alternately, how it is possible for them to always exist.

We donât know what mechanisms gods use to create or change anything.

We donât know what the âsupernaturalâ is, nor how it is capable of interacting with the natural world.

In other words, we know absolutely nothing
about gods â yet at least one god is often given credit for many
things. Thus, to say âGod did itâ is to answer a question with a
question. It provides no information and only makes the original question more complex.

The god-of-the-gaps argument says that not only do we not have a naturalistic answer today, but we will never discover a naturalistic answer in the future because no naturalistic answer is possible. Thus, to rebut a god-of-the-gaps argument, we only have to show that a naturalistic answer is possible.

For
example: We open the door to a room and observe a cat sleeping in a
corner. We close the door, then open it again five minutes later. We
observe that the cat is now sleeping in another corner. One person says
âGod did it by levitating the sleeping catâ (without offering any
proof). Another person says âItâs quite possible that the cat woke up,
wandered over to the other corner, and fell asleep again.â Thus,
although no one saw what actually happened, the god-of-the-gaps argument
has been rendered implausible by a possible naturalistic explanation.

(2) Leaps of Faith â The fact is, no one even knows if itâs possible
for gods to exist. Just because we can imagine something doesnât mean
itâs possible. For example, we can all imagine ourselves walking through
a solid wall, but that doesnât mean itâs possible. So, just because we
can imagine a god, doesnât mean its existence is actually possible.

Because there is no direct proof for the existence of any gods, a typical believer must make at least nine leaps of faith to arrive at the god they believe in. These are separate leaps of faith because one leap does not imply the next leap.

The first leap of faith is that a supernatural realm even exists.

Second, that beings of some sort exist in this realm.

Third, that these beings have consciousness.

Fourth, that at least one of these beings is eternal.

Fifth, that this being is capable of creating something from nothing.

Sixth, that this being is capable of interfering with the universe after it is created (i.e. miracles).

Seventh, eighth, and ninth, that this being is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving.

If people want to believe in a god more specific to a particular religion, then some additional leaps of faith are necessary.

So,
when we speak about gods, we have absolutely no idea what weâre talking
about (see unconvincing argument #1), and we have to make at least nine
leaps of faith to get to the god most people believe in.

(3) Holy Books
â Just because something is written down does not make it true. This
goes for the Bible, the Qurâan, and any other holy book. It is circular
reasoning to try to prove the god of a holy book exists by using the
holy book itself as âevidence.â

People who believe the holy book of one religion usually disbelieve the holy books of other religions.

(4) The Argument from Historical Settings
â This argument states that because historical people and places are
mentioned in ancient stories, that everything else about those stories,
including descriptions of supernatural events, must be true. By this
argument, everything written in the Iliad, including the intervention of the ancient Greek gods, must be true.

(5) âRevelationsâ of Others
â All religions claim to be revealed, usually through people called
âprophets.â But how can we know that a ârevelationâ is actually a
âmessage from a godâ and not a hallucination?

A revelation is a personal experience. Even if a revelation really did come from a god, there is no way we could prove it.

People
of one religion usually disbelieve the revelations of other religions.
These revelations often contradict each other, so what basis do we have
for deciding which are the âtrue revelationsâ?

(6) âRevelationsâ of Oneâs Own (Personal Testimony, Feelings, âOpen Heartâ)
â This is when you are personally having the revelation or feeling that
a god exists. Though you may be sincere, and even if a god really does
exist, a feeling is not proof, either for you or for someone else.

It
will do no good to ask atheists to âopen our hearts and accept Jesusâ
(or any other deity). If we were to set aside our skepticism, we might
indeed have an inspirational experience. But this would be an emotional
experience and weâd have no way to verify if a god was really speaking
to us or if we were just hallucinating.

Many atheists have stories
of how wonderful it felt to lose their belief in gods. As with
religion, this is not proof that atheism is true.

(7) Most People Believe in God
â Itâs true that throughout history, most people have believed in at
least one god. But mere popularity doesnât make something true. (Most
people used to mistakenly believe that the Earth was the center of the
universe.)

The number of atheists in the world is currently
increasing. We can imagine a day when most people are atheists. (In
fact, most of the top scientists in the U.S. already are atheists.)
However, as with religion, the popularity of atheism will not be able to
be used as proof of its truth.

Even today, it is probable that in
England and France atheists outnumber theists. Does this mean that God
exists everywhere except in those two countries?

(8) Evolution Would Not Favor a False Belief
â Would evolution reward a species incapable of perceiving reality?
Would evolution reward a species that hallucinated? If not, then a god
must exist, according to this argument.

However, evolution does not reward what is true. Evolution rewards that which is useful.

No
one can doubt that religion and god-belief have sometimes been useful.
âGodâ can be employed like Santa Claus, to keep people behaving well in
order to earn a reward. âGodâ can also be used to justify horrible
behavior that benefits your group, such as Islamic suicide bombings or
the Christian Crusades. âGodâ can reduce your fear of death.

Nevertheless, in an age of nuclear weapons, the dangers of god belief far outweigh its usefulness.

(9) The âGod Partâ of the Brain
â Some religious people argue that a god must exist, or why else would
we have a part of our brain that can ârecognizeâ a god? What use would
that part of our brain be otherwise?

However, imagination is
important for us to be able to predict the future, and thus aids in our
survival. We can imagine all kinds of things that arenât true. It is a byproduct of being able to imagine things that might be true.

As
a matter of fact, scientists have begun to study why some people have
religious beliefs and others donât, from a biological perspective. They
have identified certain naturally occurring chemicals in our brains that
can give us religious experiences. For example, the brain chemical
dopamine increases the likelihood that we will âseeâ patterns where
there are none.

In studies of religion and the brain, a new field
called neurotheology, they have identified the temporal lobe as a place
in the brain that can generate religious experiences.

Another part
of the brain, which regulates a personâs sense of âself,â can be
consciously shut down during meditation, giving the meditator (who loses
his or her sense of personal boundaries) a feeling of âonenessâ with
the universe.

(10) Ancient âMiraclesâ & Resurrection Stories
â Many religions have miracle stories. And, just as people who believe
in one religion are usually skeptical towards miracle stories of other
religions, atheists are skeptical toward all miracle stories.

Extraordinary
events can become exaggerated and grow into miraculous legends. Good
magicians can perform acts that seem like miracles. Things can be
mismeasured and misinterpreted. Many things that seemed like âmiraclesâ
in the ancient world can be explained with modern knowledge.

Regarding resurrections, atheists will not find a story
of someone resurrecting from the dead to be convincing. There are many
such legends in ancient literature and, again, most religious people
reject the resurrection stories of other religions.

Many religions
reports that their god(s) performed obvious, spectacular miracles
thousands of years ago. Why have these miracles stopped? Is it because
the gods have become shy? Or is it because science started?

(11) Modern Medical âMiraclesâ & Resurrection Stories
â Modern medical âmiraclesâ are a good example of âgod-of-the-gaps.â A
person experiences a cure for a disease that science canât explain.
Therefore, âGod did it.â God never has to prove himself in these
arguments. It is always assumed that he gets to win by default.

But
this argument assumes we know everything about the human body, so that a
natural explanation is impossible. But the fact is, we donât have
complete medical knowledge. Why donât we ever see something that would
be a true miracle, like an amputated arm instantaneously regenerating?

Several
studies of prayer, where the patients didnât know whether or not they
were being prayed for, including a study by the Mayo Clinic, have shown
prayer to have no effect on healing.

(This raises the question of
why we would have to beg an all-powerful, all-loving god to be healed in
the first place. It seems ironic, to say the least, to pray to a loving
god to be cured from diseases and the effects of natural disasters that
he himself created. It also raises the Problem of Evil: If God is
all-powerful and all-loving, why does evil exist in the first place?)

Modern
resurrection stories always seem to occur in Third World countries
under unscientific conditions. However, there have been thousands of
people in modern hospitals hooked up to machines that verified their
deaths when they died. Why didnât any of them ever resurrect?

(12) âHeavenâ (Fear of Death)
â Atheists donât like the fact that weâre all going to die any more
than religious people do. However, this fear does not prove there is an
afterlife â only that we wish there was an afterlife. But wishing doesnât make it so.

There is no evidence for a god, no evidence that he created any place for us to go after we die, no explanation as to exactly what that place is composed of, nor where it is, nor how a god created it from nothing.

There is no evidence for a soul, no description of what a soul is composed of, and no explanation of how a non-material soul evolved in a material body, or, alternately, no explanation of how or when a god zaps a soul into a body.

If
a fertilized human egg has a soul, what happens if that egg splits in
two to form identical twins? Does each twin have half a soul? Or did the
original fertilized egg have two souls?

What about when the
opposite happens, when two fertilized eggs fuse to form one human being,
creating what is known as a chimera? Does that person have two souls?
Or did each original fertilized egg have only half a soul?

If a
one-week-old baby dies, what kind of thoughts will it have in an
afterlife? The thoughts of a one-week-old, which are zero? The thoughts
of an adult? If so, how will that happen? Where will those thoughts come
from and what will they be?

There is no reason to believe our
consciousness survives the death of our brains. The mind is not
something separate from the body.

For example, we know the
chemicals responsible for the feeling of love. Drugs can alter our mood,
and thus change our thoughts. Physical damage to our brains can change
our personalities, and our thoughts. And learning a new skill, which
involves thinking, can physically change the structure of our brains.

Some
people get Alzheimerâs disease at the end of their lives. The
irreversible damage to their brains can be detected by brain scans.
These people lose their ability to think, yet they are still alive. How,
one second after these people die, does their thinking return (in a
âsoulâ)?

If people had to choose between a god and an afterlife,
most people would choose the afterlife and forget about God. They only
choose god belief because itâs the only way they know of to fulfill
their desire for an afterlife. [Thanks to Edward Tabash for this point.]

(13) Fear of Hell
â The idea of hell strikes atheists as a scam â an attempt to get
people to believe through fear what they cannot believe through reason
and evidence.

The only way to approach this âlogicallyâ is to find the religion that punishes you the worst for disbelief, and then believe that religion. Okay, you will have saved yourself from the worst punishment that exists â if that religion is the âtrueâ religion.

But if that religion (with its punishment) is not the true religion â if the religion that has the second or third worst punishment for disbelief is the true religion â then you have saved yourself nothing.

So, which religionâs hell is the true hell? Without evidence, we can never know.

Even
within Christianity there are three different versions of hell. There
is the traditional version, where your âsoulâ burns forever. A second
version says that eternal punishment is too cruel for a loving god, so
your âsoulâ is burnt out of existence.

And a third version says
that hell is not a physical place but the condition of being forever
separated from God. But atheists are already separated from God and are
having a good time, so they fail to see how this is a punishment. And,
how can a person be separated from God when God is supposedly
everywhere?

(14) âPascalâs Wagerâ / Faith â In
short, Pascalâs Wager states that we have everything to gain (an
eternity in heaven) and nothing to lose by believing in a god. On the
other hand, disbelief can lead to a loss of heaven (i.e. hell).

Weâve already noted that heaven is wishful thinking and that hell is a scam, so letâs address the issue of faith.

Pascalâs Wager assumes a person can will
himself or herself into having faith. This is simply not the case, at
least not for an atheist. So atheists would have to pretend to believe.
But according to most definitions of God, wouldnât God know we were
lying to hedge our bets? Would a god reward this?

Part of Pascalâs
Wager states that you âlose nothingâ by believing. But an atheist would
disagree. By believing under these conditions, youâre acknowledging
that youâre willing to accept some things on faith. In other words,
youâre saying youâre willing to abandon evidence as your standard for judging reality. Faith doesnât sound so appealing when itâs phrased that way, does it?

(15) Blaming the Victim
â Many religions punish people for disbelief. However, belief requires
faith, and some people, such as atheists, are incapable of faith. Their
minds are only receptive to evidence. Therefore, are atheists to be
blamed for not believing when âGodâ provides insufficient evidence?

(16) The End of the World
â Like the concept of hell, this strikes atheists as a scare tactic to
get people to believe through fear what they canât believe through
reason and evidence. There have been predictions that the world was
going to end for centuries now. The question you might want to ask
yourselves, if youâre basing your religious beliefs on this, is how long
youâre willing to wait â what amount of time will convince you that the
world is not going to end?

(17) Difficulties of Religion
â It has sometimes been argued that because certain religious practices
are difficult to follow, nobody would do them if a god didnât exist.
However, it is the belief in the existence of a god that is motivating people. A god doesnât really have to exist for this to happen.

Difficulties
can serve as an initiation rite of passage into being counted one of
the âselect few.â After all, if just anybody could be âsaved,â there
might be no point in having a religion.

Finally, the reward for obedience promised by most religions â a heaven â far outweighs any difficulties religion imposes.

(18) The Argument from Martyrdom
â It has been argued that no one would die for a lie. This overlooks
the fact that people can be intentionally or unintentionally fooled into
believing a religion is true.

Most religious groups that promote
martyrdom promise a great reward in âheaven,â so followers donât
perceive the loss of their lives as a great sacrifice.

Does the
fact that the 9/11 bombers were willing to die for their faith make
Islam true? What about cults like Heavenâs Gate, where followers
committed suicide in 1997 believing their âsoulsâ were going to a space
ship carrying Jesus on the far side of a comet?

(19) The Argument from Embarrassment
â Some religious people argue that because their holy book contains
passages that are embarrassing to their faith, that those passages â and
the accompanying descriptions of supernatural events â must be true or
they wouldnât have been included in the book.

A classic example of
this argument is the Biblical description of the disciplesâ cowardice
after Jesusâ arrest. Yet in this case, as in others, embarrassing
moments can be included in a fictional story to heighten dramatic
tension and make the eventual triumph of the hero of the story that much
greater. [Thanks to Robert M. Price for this point.]

(20) False Dichotomies
â This is being presented with a false âeither/orâ proposition, where
youâre only given two alternatives when, in fact, there are more
possibilities.

Hereâs one that many Christians are familiar with:
âEither Jesus was insane or he was god. Since Jesus said some wise
things, he wasnât insane. Therefore, he must be God, like he said he
was.â But those are not the only two possibilities.

A third option is that, yes, it is possible to say some wise things and be deluded that you are a god.

A
fourth possibility is that Jesus didnât say everything that is
attributed to him in the Bible. Maybe he didnât actually say all those
wise things, but the writers of the Bible said he did. Or maybe he never
claimed to be God, but the writers turned him into a god after he died.

A fifth possibility is that Jesus is a fictional character and so everything was invented by the authors.

(21) Meaning in Life
â This is the idea that, without belief in a god, life would be
meaningless. Even if this were true, it would only prove we wanted a god
to exist to give meaning to our lives, not that a god actually does
exist. But the very fact that atheists can find meaning in their lives
without a belief in a god shows that god belief is not necessary.

(22) âGod is Intangible, Like Loveâ â Love is not intangible. We can define love both as a type of feeling and as demonstrated by certain types of actions.

Unlike âGod,â love is a physical thing. We know the chemicals responsible for the feeling of love.

Also,
love depends upon brain structure. A person with a lobotomy or other
type of brain damage may lose the ability to feel love.

Furthermore,
if love were not physical, it would not be confined to our physical
brains. We would expect to be able to detect an entity or force called
âloveâ floating around in the air.

(23) Morality/Ethics
â This is the idea that without a god weâd have no basis for morality.
However, a secular moral code existed before the Bible: the Code of
Hammurabi.

In Platoâs dialogue called Euthyphro, Socrates
asks a man named Euthyphro whether something is good because God says
it is, or does God announce something to be good because it has
intrinsic goodness?

If something is good because God says it is,
then God might change his mind about what is good. Thus, there would be
no absolute morality.

If God merely announces something to be good
because it has intrinsic goodness, then we might be able to discover
this intrinsic goodness ourselves, without the need for god belief.

Christians reject some of the moral laws
found in the Bible, such as killing disobedient children or people who
work on the Sabbath. Therefore, Christians must be applying their own
ethical standards from outside the Bible to be able to recognize that these commandments in the Bible are unethical. [Thanks to Dan Barker for this point.]

In fact, most religious people ignore the bad ethics in their holy books and concentrate on the good advice. In other words, theists pick and choose their ethics just like atheists do.

Other
animals exhibit kindness toward one another and a sense of justice. We
have found the part of our brains responsible for feelings of sympathy
and empathy â âmirror neuronsâ â which serve as the foundation for much
of our ethics.

Morality is something that evolved from us being
social animals. Itâs based on the selfish advantage we get from
cooperation, and on consequences. Helping one another is a selfish act
that has evolutionary rewards. (See also Argument 25, against the
existence of altruism.)

We also judge actions by their
consequences, through trial and error. The best formula we have come up
with is to allow the maximum amount of freedom that does not harm
another person or impinge on that personâs freedom. This creates the
greatest amount of happiness and prosperity in society, which benefits
the greatest amount of people (the greatest good for the greatest
number). This view includes the protection of minority rights, since in
some way we are each a minority.

Since there is no evidence for any gods, it follows that any moral belief can be attributed to a god. So, rather than being a certain guide, religion can be used to justify any
behavior. One simply has to say âGod told me to do it.â The best way to
refute this reasoning is to discard the idea of gods altogether.

Even if a god doesnât exist, some people think that a belief in a god is useful to get people to behave â kind of like an invisible policeman,
or, in the words of President George W. Bush: â(God) is constantly
searching our hearts and minds. Heâs kind of like Santa Claus. He knows
if youâve been good or if youâve been bad.â [April 8, 2007 (Easter), Army post, Fort Hood, Texas.] Do we really want to make this the basis for our ethics?

Any
decent ethical system does not need the supernatural to justify it.
However, belief in the supernatural has been used to justify many
unethical acts, such as the Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials,
gay-bashing, and 9/11.

(24) The Argument from Goodness/Beauty
â Some religious people argue that without a god there would be no
goodness and/or beauty in the world. However, goodness and beauty are
defined in human terms.

If the Earthâs environment had been so
nasty that it was impossible for life to evolve, then we wouldnât be
here to ponder this question. So, obviously, at least some things about
the Earthâs environment are life-affirming, and we are naturally drawn
to these things â our survival depends upon it.

As for the beauty
of art: we are naturally drawn to lifeaffirming images, shapes, and
colors. However, there are many examples of art, such as the paintings
of the Cubists and the Surrealists, that are loved by some people and
hated by others.

(25) Altruism â People sometimes say that without a god there would be no altruism, that evolution only rewards selfish behavior.

However,
it can be argued that there is no such thing as altruism, that people
always do what they want to do. If they are only faced with bad choices,
then people choose the thing they hate the least.

Our choices are based on what gives us (our genes) the best advantage for survival, including raising our reputation in society.

âAltruismâ
towards family members benefits people who share our genes. âAltruismâ
towards friends benefits people who may someday return the favor.

Even
âaltruismâ towards strangers has a basis in evolution. This behavior
first evolved in small tribes, where everyone knew each other and a good
reputation enhanced oneâs survival. It is now hard-wired in our brains
as a general mode of conduct. [Thanks to Richard Dawkins for this point.]

(26) Free Will
â Some people argue that without a god there would be no free will,
that we would live in a deterministic universe of cause and effect and
that we would be mere ârobots.â

Actually, there is far less free
will than most people think there is. Our conditioning (our biological
desire to survive and prosper, combined with our experiences) make
certain âchoicesâ far more likely than others. How else can we explain
our ability, in many cases, to predict human behavior?

Experiments have shown that our brain makes a âdecisionâ to take action before we become conscious of it!

Some believe that the only free will we have is to exercise a conscious veto over actions suggested by our thoughts.

Most atheists have no problem admitting that free will may be an illusion.

This issue also brings up a conundrum: If a god who created us knows the future, how can we have free will?

In
the end, if we are enjoying our lives, does it matter if free will is
real or an illusion? Isnât it only our ego â our healthy self-esteem
that is beneficial for survival â that has been conditioned to believe
that real free will is somehow better than imaginary free will?

(27) A Perfect Being Must Necessarily Exist â This is known as the ontological argument for God, first developed almost 1,000 years ago by Anselm.

We
are asked to imagine the greatest or most perfect being possible. For
most people, this is their conception of a god. Then it is pointed out
that it is greater or more perfect for something to exist rather than
not to exist. Therefore, this being (God) must necessarily exist.

But this argument does not address the question of whether it is possible for a perfect being to exist. It also means that our imagination can will things into existence. Not everything we can imagine is possible.

Letâs
apply this logic to a different subject. Imagine a perfect skyscraper.
It would remain undamaged if terrorists flew planes into it. Yet no
skyscraper can withstand such an assault without at least some damage.
But that violates our premise that the skyscraper must be perfect.
Therefore, such an indestructible skyscraper must exist.

(28) Why is there Something Rather than Nothing?
â This argument assumes that, without a god, we wouldnât expect
anything to exist. However, we have no idea of the statistical
probability of Something existing rather than Nothing.

According
to physics and astronomy professor Victor Stenger, symmetrical systems
tend to be unstable. They tend to decay into less symmetrical systems.
Now, Nothing â the lack of anything â is perfectly symmetrical, and thus highly unstable. Therefore, Something is more stable than Nothing. Thus we would expect there to be Something rather than Nothing.

We might just as reasonably ask: âWhy is there a god rather than no god?â and âWho created this god?â

(29) The Argument from First Cause
â This argument states that we live in a universe of cause-and-effect.
However, the argument goes, it is logically impossible to have an
infinite regression of causes. At some point the regression has to stop.
At that point you need a First Cause that is not the result of any
cause itself. That First Uncaused Cause, it is claimed, is God.

The
universe we live in now âbeganâ about 13.7 billion years ago. Whether
the universe existed in some other form before that â whether there was
energy/matter/gravity/etc. (a natural world) before that â is unknown.

We
donât know if the natural world had a beginning or whether it always
existed in some form. If it had a beginning, we donât know that a god is
the only possible creative source. We donât know that a god can be an
uncaused cause. What caused God?

Virtual particles pop into and
out of existence all the time. Quantum physics demonstrates that there
can indeed be uncaused events.

(30) The âLawsâ of the Universe
â Where did the âlawsâ of the universe come from? Any physical âlawâ is
merely an observed regularity. Itâs not something handed down by a
celestial tribunal.

According to physics and astronomy professor Victor Stenger: âIt is commonly believed that the âlaws of physicsâ lie outside physics. They are thought to be either imposed from outside the universe or built into its logical structure. Recent physics disputes this. The basic âlawsâ of physics are mathematical statements that have the form they do in an attempt to describe reality in an objective way. The laws of physics are just what they would be expected to be if they came from nothing.â [all emphasis added]

(31) The âFine-tuningâ of the Universe
â Some religious people argue that the six physical constants of the
universe (which control such things as the strength of gravity) can only
exist within a very narrow range to produce a universe capable of
sustaining life. Therefore, since this couldnât have happened âby
accident,â a god must have done it.

Again, this is a
god-of-the-gaps argument. But beyond that, this argument assumes that we
know everything about astrophysics â a field in which new discoveries
are made on almost a daily basis. We may discover that our universe is
not so âfine tunedâ after all.

Another possibility is that there
may exist multiple universes â either separately or as âbubble
universesâ within a single universe. Each of these universes could have
its own set of constants. Given enough universes, by chance it is likely that at least one will produce and sustain life.

We
know it is possible for at least one universe to exist â we are in it.
If one can exist, why not many? On the other hand, we have no evidence
that it is possible for even one god to exist.

Now letâs take a
look at most peopleâs definition of a god: eternal, omni-present,
all-knowing, all-powerful, and allloving. Can God be any other way than exactly the way he is?

Although there is some small margin for variance in the âfine-tuningâ of the constants of the universe, there is traditionally no
margin for variance in the constants of God. Therefore, our universe
with a traditional god is logically more implausible than our universe
without one.

And, of course, we must ask: Who or what fine-tuned God?

If the universe was created specifically
with humans in mind, then the enormous size of the universe (most of it
hostile to life) and the billions of years that passed before humans
showed up are ridiculous and wasteful â not what we would expect from a
god.

(32) The âFine-tuningâ of the Earth â Some
religious people argue that the Earth is positioned âjust rightâ in the
solar system (not too hot, not too cold, etc.) for life to exist.
Furthermore, the elements on Earth (carbon, oxygen, etc.) are also âjust
right.â These people claim that this couldnât have happened âby
accident,â so a god must exist to have done the positioning and
chemistry.

We should be able to recognize a god-of-the-gaps argument here. But an even better rebuttal exists. If Earth was the only planet in the universe, then it would indeed be remarkable that our conditions turned out to be âjust right.â

But
most religious people acknowledge that there are probably thousands, if
not millions, of other planets in the universe. (Our own solar system
has eight planets.) Therefore, by chance, at least one of those planets will have conditions that will produce some kind of life.

We
can imagine religious purple creatures with four eyes and breathing
carbon dioxide on another planet also falsely believing that their
planet is âfine-tunedâ and that a creator god exists in their image.

(33) Creationism / âIntelligent Designâ â This is the idea that if we canât currently explain something about life, then âGod did itâ (god-of-the-gaps).

However,
if Genesis, or any similar religious creation myth, is true, then
virtually every field of science is wrong. Not only is biology wrong,
but so too are chemistry, physics, archeology, and astronomy, as well as
their many subdisciplines such as embryology and genetics. In fact, we
might as well throw out the entire scientific method.

Creationists
often make a distinction between âmicroâ evolution and âmacroâ
evolution â that is, change within a species, which they accept, and
change from one species to another, which they do not accept.

But
what are the mechanisms for âmicroâ evolution? They are: mutation,
natural selection, and inheritance. And what are the mechanisms for
âmacroâ evolution? Exactly the same: mutation, natural selection, and
inheritance. The only difference is the amount of time required. Do some
genes say to themselves: âGee, I better not change too much or it will
upset some religious people?â

Evolution is the best explanation,
and the only explanation for which we have any evidence, for the age of
fossils, for the progression of fossils, for genetic similarities, for
structural similarities, and for transitional fossils.

Yes, there are
transitional fossils. For example, we have a good fossil trail of
species going from land mammal to whale, including basilosaurus, a
primitive whale that still retained useless, small hind legs. Even
today, whales retain their hip bones.

(Some creationists argue
that those tiny hind legs would have been useful for mating, thus
basilosaurus was a separately created species and not a transition. But
if those hind legs were so useful, why did they evolve completely away?)

In
fact, snakes, too, still have hip bones, and once in a great while we
see a snake born with vestiges of hind legs, demonstrating their
evolution from reptile ancestors that had hind legs.

In China we
have found many half-reptile/half-bird fossils, demonstrating that
transition. There is the recently discovered fossil tiktaalik,
which helped filled a gap between fish and amphibians. It was discovered
in Canada, exactly where, and in the age of rock, that evolution
predicted. [Thanks to PZ Myers for this point.]

On the other hand, if a perfect god
created life we would expect him to do a better job. We wouldnât expect
that 99% of all species that have ever existed would have gone extinct.

As
the Christian evolutionary biologist Kenneth R. Miller stated: âif God
purposely designed 30 horse species that later disappeared, then Godâs
primary attribute is incompetence. He canât make it right the first
time.â [âEducators debate âintelligent designâ â by Richard N. Ostling, Star Tribune. March 23, 2002, p. B9.]

As
the evangelical Christian Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome
Project, stated: âID [Intelligent Design] portrays the Almighty as a
clumsy Creator, having to intervene at regular intervals to fix the
inadequacies of His own initial plan for generating the complexity of
life.â [The Language of God, pp. 193-194.]

If a perfect god created life we would not expect birth defects. If a perfect god
created life we would not expect âunintelligent designâ such as a
prostate gland that swells and shuts down the urinary tract, when the
urinary tract could have just as easily have been routed around the
prostate gland. Is âGodâ an incompetent or sloppy designer?

If a
god created all life within a week then, even with an alleged worldwide
flood, we would expect to find a thoroughly mixed geologic column of
fossils. We donât find this.

We also have the contradiction that people claim that God is âpro-life,â yet he allows for spontaneous abortion. One third to one half
of fertilized human eggs get spontaneously aborted, often before the
woman is even aware that sheâs pregnant. If a god designed the human
system of reproduction, this make God the worldâs biggest abortionist.

(34) The universe and/or life violate the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) â The second law of thermodynamics (entropy) states that in a closed system, things tend toward greater disorder. Some religious people argue that because the universe and life are so orderly, that a god must be required who could violate this law.

Again, I thank physics and astronomy professor Victor Stenger for the secular explanation:

The universe does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. The universe started with the maximum amount of disorder possible for its size. Then, as the universe expanded, this allowed for more disorder to occur, and, in fact, it is occurring.

Despite the fact that the overall disorder is increasing in the system called the universe, increasing order is allowed in subsystems, such as galaxies, solar systems, and life â so long as the net effect to the entire universe is increased disorder.

If
a god created the universe, we would have expected it to start in an
orderly fashion, not in disorder. The fact that the universe started
with maximum disorder means that a god could not have created it, because a purposeful creation would have had at least some order to it.

It also turns out that the negative gravitational energy in the universe exactly cancels the positive energy represented by matter, so that the total net energy of the universe is zero, which is what you would expect if the universe came from Nothing by natural means.
However, if a god was involved, you would have expected him to have
introduced energy into the universe. There is no evidence of this.

Itâs
interesting how theists will cling to the second law of thermodynamics
to try to prove the existence of their god, while totally ignoring the
first law of thermodynamics â that matter/energy can be neither created
nor destroyed â which would thoroughly disprove the existence of their god as a being who can create something from nothing.

Conclusion
â Religious people have a tough, if not impossible task to try to prove
a god exists, let alone that their particular religion is true. If any
religion had objective standards, wouldnât everyone be flocking to the
same âtrueâ religion? Instead we find that people tend to believe, to
varying degrees, the religion in which they were indoctrinated. Or they
are atheists.

Send me email updates about messages I've received on the site and the latest news from The CafeMom Team.
By signing up, you certify that you are female and accept the Terms of Service and have read the
Privacy Policy.